tv Americas News HQ FOX News March 23, 2017 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
>> reporter: you don't think the healthcare package is ideal? >> press secretary spicer: for a lot of members that was in many said mr. president, we are with you. some thought they would go back and think about it, but there was i think for some members -- i think this was a discussion that the president continues to have. we've been very, very pleased with the direction it's going in and the number of members who have expressed their support for it. we'll continue the discussion with the tuesday group. but, the number is growing. the number of members who have shared concerns. and i think that we have been very responsive, as well as speaker ryan, to the concerns and ideas that members have expressed from across the spectrum. >> reporter: question. you said there is only plan a. >> right. >> reporter: at this point, is there an acknowledgement that perhaps there does need to be a plan b if this vote doesn't happen tonight? >> plan a. >> reporter: the president asked speaker ryan to lay this bill
while he works with some members. the president ask you to delay the vote? >> no. >> reporter: giving you the opportunity to respond to what leader pelosi said. said it is a rookie move to state a date before there is consensus from the republican caucus. what's your response to that? >> thank you. i appreciate that. i think we have a pretty strong record on the republican side of getting bills passed, getting things done. and so i know they have a pretty strong record of passing things and telling people that they can read the bill afterwards. i think we've done this the right way. we know that we've done it with the support that voters told members and the president that they wanted. jonathan? >> reporter: if i might, there are some former white house lawyers who served in the prior administration who say that by tweeting from his official potus account this morning a video that was put out on official social media channels the
president, the white house have violated the anti-lobbying law because they're using money that was appropriated by congress. is that a concern? do you appreciate it? something that's been talked about? >> it is not. it doesn't -- that is not applicable to the president, no. i believe you're referring to 18 u.s. code 1913, if i'm correct. i think we're pretty good on it. jonathan? >> reporter: thanks, sean. the president wrote a book called "the art of the deal" when it comes to negotiation. if this bill does not pass, would he accepted the blame? if not, who would? >> let's get to the vote. i think the president has done a phenomenal job. there's no question when you look at the effort he's put in, the number of meetings he's had and the changes to the bill, there's no question how hard the president and his team have worked to get this done. it's in responseat the end of the day we can't force somebody to vote. as i mentioned to halle and
several other folks, i like the direction this is going. we'll continue to see support grow. we're not seeing people fall off. we're seeing people come on board. that's a great trajectory to have. so i like where we're headed. yeah. >> reporter: two very quick clarifications. i think the issue was with anti-lobbying law. not what the president had done but with white house staffers were doing. the law does not apply to the president. >> do you want me to answer that one? >> reporter: sure. >> let me read to you from the code. the department of justice consistently con straoued the anti-lobbying act as limiting the lobbying activities personally under taken by the president is in assistance with the office of the president, the vice president, cabinet members and others confirmed officials appointed by the president responsibility. so there's clearly a carve out that matters. >> reporter: when you're talking about the rule earlier, can we
read from your answer that the house does not intend to overrule the senate. >> it's not a question of overrule. the senate parliamentarian makes decisions. it is up to the presiding officer. i understand how the senate works. the presiding officer determined -- senate parliamentarian asked for guidance. >> reporter: if the guidance from the senate parliamentarian is that something would violate the rule, would vice president pence -- >> i'm not going to answer hypotheticals, not on this bill or any other. >> reporter: just finally, it was reported yesterday that u.s. officials believe that -- or are investigating president trump communicated with russian operatives, released information damaging hillary clinton's campaign. i want you to respond to that. >> so let's look at what cnn reported. they reported that anonymous u.s. officials told them that information indicates that
association of the campaign and suspected operatives coordinated which they admit is not conclusive of anything, bordering on collusion. i think there's probably more evidence that cnn clueded with the clinton campaign to get her debate questions than the trump campaign gave any kind of collusion. so i think when it comes down to that reporting, it is filled with a bunch of subjective terms about this person may have done this, possibly could have done that. at the end of the story, way to the very bottom, it says the fbi cannot prove that collusion took place. i have addressed this type of reporting in the past and this fits right in. john? >> reporter: without getting too deep into the weeds in exactly what this strategy is in the senate to get this bill through the bird bath, is the president confident that the strategy that's being developed in the senate will result in a bill that can pass muster? >> yes. >> reporter: and president told
us several weeks ago that if it looked like the democrats were going to filibuster judge gorsuch, he would encourage mitch mcconnell to invoke the nuclear option. has the president's position changed on that at all? >> the president has not spoken to mitch mcconnell. senator schumer, within the last hour, came out with his position. i'm sure that after we get through tonight, the president will have some kind of conversation with senator mcconnell and discuss the strategy. we're not there yet. >> reporter: following up on jordan's question, then i have a follow-up on another question. how did chairman nunes end up at the white house yesterday? yesterday he said he invited himself here. that's annin uncommon way to end up here. can you take us through the tic toc of what happened? >> no. i don't know how he got here. i assume in a car. i don't track him. i don't keep his schedule. he literally gave a press conference as we were starting and saying i'm going to go down to the white house after he
briefed the press. >> reporter: this is the first time the white house was made aware of the surveillance that he brought to the president yesterday? >> i believe that the information that he shared with the president was new. >> reporter: follow-up on healthcare, is there any plan if the bill does not pass tonight? >> no. it's gonna pass. so that's it. >> reporter: now that you've been briefed, i know you yesterday you hadn't been. can you say if the information nunes had was information that the president, that he has that would be revealed this week? >> we're not going to -- there's not -- the -- my understanding, because i was not briefed on the contents of that was that he spoke generally about what he had seen in these reports that he had been made privy to but there were further details he wanted the president to know what he had seen and that it wasn't related to russia. he's continuing. again, all the public comments are that he is going to continue to pursue this and then we'll have further updates later.
but i'm not aware of the specific nature of it. >> reporter: what will the president's reaction be to republicans who vote against the healthcare bill tonight? and are they being encouraged to vote their conscience? >> well, i think i have addressed this before, but i think the president is very clear that republicans in particular have made a commitment to constituents and to the american people that, if given the opportunity to have a republican president or republican senate and republican house, that they would enact repeal and replace and put into it healthcare. he believes, as he mentioned during when he met with the conference, as he met with the members of the freedom caucus today. i think in several meetings, that this is something we've talked about. you've taken these free votes when it didn't matter because you didn't have a republican president and you got to vote for repeal and tell your con stiff wents something like 50 times. this is live ball now. and this is for real. we're going to do what we pledged to the american people and keep our word. and he's made very clear that part of the reason that he got
elected is because he went out and made a series of bold pledges to the american people about what he would do if he were president. he's acting on those. he's acting swiftly and boldly with respect to this in particular. and that he believes that not just him but the members of the house and senate have an obligation to fulfill the promise and the pledge that they made to the american people. cecelia? >> reporter: regardless of what happens today, will we hear from the president? will he make a statement? >> i think it will depend on what time the vote is. i don't want to commit. i emsure in some way shape or form we'll have comment. >> reporter: similar to the question you were asking, but is the president, no matter what happens, prepared to take responsibility for the outcome of this bill? >> in what way? >> reporter: whether it succeeds or fails? his name is on it. lot of people think that. >> well, i think in the sense that we've been very clear about this is a priority of ours and we worked on it. again i go back to -- attend of
the day, we can't make people vote. we have done everything we can to listen to them, to incorporate their thoughts, to incorporate their ideas, to make the bill as best we can. it's a balancing act, make no mistake about it. there's a full spectrum of folks in the house that have different desires. but i think we can all commit that this is the one vehicle that's going to repeal something that almost every single republican that i'm aware of has pledged to do if they were re-elected or elected. i think there's a desire, will we understand that not every member will find it perfect. that's what happens when you need to get, in this case, 216 votes. but it's the best bill that takes into consideration all of the concerns and all of the goals and all of the values. lot of case, some of it isn't a question of the policy, it's a question of the timing and some of the things people want that are happening in phase three and phase one. as we've addressed, the byrd
rule which is this archaic thing in the house that don't have to deal with it in the senate. that deals with whether or not, and if there is -- if it is loaded up with things that are stricken, then it doesen serve us any good. i think we have put together a comprehensive approach to addressing how to actually repeal and how to actually replace. i think the president walked through with the house freedom caucus today several of the administrative acts that secretary price would be taking in accordance with the authority that was granted to him by the obamacare legislation and by some of the actions that the secretary took back in 2009. there's a lot of concern among members about some of the sequencing on things. and i think we have continued to not -- this isn't just about policy. some of it is about sequencing and timing. the president and the vice president and the rest of the team has done a lot to reassure them on the sequencing and how this thing is gonna act.
that discussion i think has continued to be very productive to reassure members how this thing is gonna happen and take place. >> reporter: thanks, sean. moment ago you said members of the freedom caucus were here today. there were those who said they are not with you. can you tell us how many of those there were and what their names were? >> not yet. i'm not trying to be cute about this. i think if we do this as we do the whip count, as you can imagine, we've got to make sure that we don't, that this balancing act, you've got to make sure certain people don't fall off tend as you pick up certain people. so we're keeping that vote total rather tight right now, but i feel good by the direction we're heading in. >> reporter: can you say what specific offer was made? there was reporting that the final offer was put on the table for these guy. what specific changes did the president offer them today that were new? >> it's not just changes.
part of this is some of the administrative stuff, and making sure that they have reassurances that certain things that secretary sibila enacted when she enacted the bill, that will be acted upon immediately. and so there was an enumeration of those things and commitment on some of the other things that would be given to phase three bills about buying across state lines, increasing hsa. there was a lot of talk about that. that's where i think a lot of this comes down to especially among those members. they feel very good about the changes that have been made in the manager's amendment. there's some question about the commitment and changes that might take place in the senate. there was a lot of, can we count on this when this happens? so i just want to -- some of this is working. >> reporter: two questions,
please. one, after 68 countries presenting against terrorism or against isis at the state department under the leadership of the secretary of state. there was adviser to the president here day before yesterday. he was addressing -- [ inaudible ] -- who is the foreign minister. what were they saying or addressing these two meetings. we control two countries who are financing and training saudi arabia, financing in the name of charities and pakistan is training. so what is the president's message to this group, at the same time there is a man wanted
by the u.s., $10 million bounty on him. he is openly spewing hatred against the u.s. and india. where do we go from here? >> secretary tillerson's been meeting, has been going through this meeting with 68 of those members that are committed to addressing syria and isis. i can't talk about the conversations that mr. tillerson is having. i would stay in touch with the state department on that. john? >> reporter: second question, please. it was 1976 when a spiritual leader came from india to new york city. he wanted to have a parade but they didn't have any sources, mr. trump, donald trump, came
out and had a group to go on this festival. but now -- [ inaudible ] -- same group who had been at the white house this weekend, a peaceful prayer and vigil. they're asking the president to come out, meet the indian american community against hate crime or somebody from the white house. >> i think we discussed the nature of hate crimes in the past and we've condemned the acts that happened in kansas earlier this year. i'm sure this is a very important issue for them. the president right now is focused in particular on getting obamacare repealed and replaced. the issue in london. there's a lot that's occupying his time. i'm sure that we will continue to monitor that situation as well. mara? maybe some day. we'll see. >> reporter: talking about health benefits. the president said to tucker
carlson that his people were taken care of, he wasn't going to sign anything. i'm wondering what he said to the people who voted for him who rely on the provisions for opiod addiction, things that were included in those essential health benefits if they go away. >> respectfully, i think that's a false choice. again, the problem with obamacare they took all these benefitted, mandated that they had to be offered. what happened? it spiked insurance rates. it spiked deductibles. choices went away. the point isn't making a benefit go away or not. it's offering options to people. it's literally like any other service or product that we have here in this country where you can buy what you want. sometimes it's at a lower price point because that's what you can afford. sometimes you buy features on a product because you want the features. but people should have choice just the same way they do in almost every other industry. that's the point. it's not about giving or taking.
it's about the point that they are being mandated. that's the point. people should buy what they want and what is appropriate for themselves and their family. >> reporter: right now where do the essential health benefits stand? will they be part of this bill? >> my understanding is they're part of the house bill. alexis? >> reporter: just to follow up on a question. i think part of the question is a lot of people buy insurance not knowing what they're going to need. so -- >> i think if you are an older man you can generally say you're not going to need maternity care. >> reporter: that's possible. but here's the question mara was suggesting. opiod and drug addiction, you don't buy insurance and say i need that backup coverage because i think i'm going to get addicted to painkillers or drugs. so the question is, is the president confident that the kind of choices would be offered by insurance companies on their own valition. >> i think there's a market for
things. i don't think you buy insurance for anything, alexis, guessing, saying, i assume if my house burns down i'm going to need to replace these things. you buy insurance. that's the whole point of insurance. when people look at it, they'll buy what they may not need, but they will evaluate it. it's the same thing when you look at a retirement plan or car insurance. you evaluate what your needs are and then make the decision what's best for you and your family. >> reporter: [ inaudible ] >> reporter: can you say -- >> with all due respect -- yes. the way that the term associate is flown around, i don't understand what that means. you're talking about employees of the campaign, employees of the transition or the white house, that's one thing. the word this terms a associate gets thrown out. you pull out a gentle man who was employed by someone for five
months and talk about a client he had ten years ago. no. i can't say that nobody ever in his path who may or may not have come in contact with him, sat next to him on a plane, who grew up with him in grade school. >> reporter: even the campaign chairman? >> i understand who he is. thank you. i am well aware of paul, as i read it yesterday. the point that i'm making, when you use a term like associate and all these subjective terms, there's a reason you're doing it is because you don't have anything concrete. if you do, come back to me and say does anyone in the white house, is anyone in the transition. when you throw out a vague term like that, it's a catch all. can you be certain no one works for time life r turner has ever done anything inlegal? that's a pretty broadway of casting a net, or who has visited the building. that's what you are saying. >> reporter: also have a question of the nonsource and have an issue the way they have
been used. people in this white house are often on background, they are appearing in sources. devin nunes used an anonymous source in the intelligence briefing. why is it acceptable in that case? >> there's two issues here. number one, what i have a problem with and in specific with the reporting that your network did yesterday, it was one subjective term after another. associates that may or may not be there. all one subjective term or another. with no concrete proof that anything happened. no way. when you use the term like associates, you don't even put a time frame around it. it is nebulous at best to suggest somebody over and over again making a claim the way you do and the narrative continues without any substant kwraeugs. when you're talking ab nunes. there's a reason when someone is dealing with classified information can't go out in public and reveal certain things. that's not what he said. i don't think he ever said anything wasn't classified. there are certain things --
>> reporter: he didn't want to talk about it because he was not classified. >> he cannot talk about the specifics would be my suggestion. you can't talk about specifics of a case in terms of the sources and methods and the individual, because part of what's happened, a lot of the individuals who have been masked or unmasked are supposed to be classified. just because something has gone into the public domain doesn't make it any less classified. >> sean, the nuclear posture review commencing with this administration. can you assure us that everything is on the table including a lifting of a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing and all developing nuclear warning. >> i don't have a full readout of that. i'll get back to you or have someone get back to you. katie? >> reporter: you keep saying there's not a plan b for obamacare. people are saying they should get obamacare collapse and then democrats will own it. it's not fair to the american people to do that.
is the reason there's not a plan b is because the president's plan is to allow obamacare to collapse? >> no. the president's plan is to pass the bill tonight. get it on to the senate and then sign a bill once it goes to conference. that's the president's plan. that's what the president's been fighting for. that's what the president has been trying to make it stronger and stronger. i think he's facing a very clear reality. if it doesen do this, that it is a false choice to compare what we're doing with obamacare because obamacare is collapsing. premiums are sky rocketing. choices are going down. there is no equivalent. something is failing and we're actually trying to get rid of it to help the american people. the point the president's making is politically expedient answer is to do nothing. i think we owe to it the american people to do the right thing. >> reporter: follow-up question. who is the president willing to hold accountable for the split in the republican party not being able to get this bill
done? the struggle that it's taking to get the votes at the last minute. is he holding republican leadership, paul ryan, accountable, for bringing a bill to the table without having consensus in the freedom caucus? or is he holding the freedom caucus responsible? >> we're not focused on blaming. we're focused on getting it done and winning. >> reporter: you criticized president obama for the way he sold obamacare and there may be some validity to that. president elect trump, now president trump has been selling this legislation, coverage for everybody, lower premiums, lower deductibles and better health care. >> thank you. >> reporter: hasn't he put republicans on the spot with this legislation? by selling it that way? >> sure. it is. thank you for the advertisement. it will do that. that's what the point is. but i think that there has been,
a, i think there is concern about the timing. we've continued to allay a lot of those concerns. because of the rules that they are. one of the things that is tough -- not tough, but just reality. if we don't do it the way we'll do it, we need 60 votes and we're not going to get 60 votes in the senate. democrats are united in stopping any progress being made on this. and so i think the point that we've had to make over and over again is i get it. in a perfect world, if we had 60 votes, we could do this in a very very different way and have a much more comprehensive legislative strategy. but in the same way the democrats use reconciliation, as do we. to undo it. the way it is a three pronged, three phased approach is because of the nature that it has to get dealt with. for a lot of folks, many of them are new to the process. many of whom want to see it done in a different way. we are trying to do it in the
most responsible way so when it gets sent over to the senate, we don't have to have a huge parliamentary fight. while most people don't want to fully appreciate the nuances of that, it is a reality we have to face if we want to get it done. that makes a big big difference. peter? >> reporter: yesterday when chairman nunes was hear, we heard his comments. today he expressed regret for the way he handled this, going public before speaking to the members of his own committee. my question is, why was it appropriate? why does the white house believe it was appropriate for chairman nunes to give his information to the president regarding an investigation about the president's own associates during the campaign? >> two things. one, it wasn't as has been asked before. to ask me why he did something. he made a decision. hold on. you are getting there.
i have seen enough of you peter. i know where you were going. but the reality is, is that he made a decision. he briefed the press first. no one had a problem, by the way, in the press corpse. he briefed your colleagues before he briefed anybody else. i don't hear too much crying about that. reality is, and then he made a statement. said i'm going to come down to the white house and share the information with with the president as has been noted. he told us he made an announcement. i'm coming down to the white house, asked for time with the president. part of the reason, to be clear and to your question, it's specifically to say that there's a big difference between any discussion about what's gone on in russia and why this intelligence was picked up. his comments very clear. the intelligence and the information that he picked up had nothing to do with russia. and i think he felt as though, according to his own words, he had an obligation to make sure the president knew what he
discovered. >> reporter: just because appearances matter on this, doesn't the white house have a concern that creates the appearance that there was potentially interference by the president that he was included in conversations about the investigation before it was completed? >> my concern, to be perfectly blunt with you, is that it's always -- you seem to have an obsession with the process and not the substance. at some point -- no, no. hold on. >> reporter: the president is the one who wants the conclusion. i'm asking why he asked for details before it was completed? >> chairman nunes said -- i'm going to make it clear. he said he wanted to make it very clear that the discussion and the revelations that he had were not -- did not regard anything to do with russia and he wanted the president to understand that. but there seems to be this obsession with the process. you know, how did he get here? when did he go? what was the reaction? at some point there should be a concern about the substance. that's a very serious revelation that he's made about what happened during the 2016
election with respect to our side. some of the things that happened. and at some point i would implore, urge, beg, some of you to use some of your investigative skills to look into what actually did happen. why did it happen? what was going on back there? who knew what when? i think there should be a similar concern as opposed to figuring out whether he took a skateboard or car here as to what happened and why it happened. and the reality is that whether he briefed us first or briefed the democratic members and that's up to him to decide, the substance of what he shared should be troubling to everybody. and that's what i think is the important thing. >> reporter: i want to ask you, feed back president trump said people shouldn't be allowed to use sources unless they use someone's name. said it does, quote, tremendous disservice. following up with the conversation you started with sara. chairman nunes came out. he noted sources that he couldn't create and provide publicly. so why, when it's politically
advantageous is that use of sourcing okay, but when it's politically damaging, it's not okay. >> he came out and briefed people on what he knew at the time and said he was literally going to give further briefs and would have further updates. that's a big difference than reporting and making a serious allegation. in fact, he was doing quite the opposite. he was vindicating the president and saying there is something you need to know about the substance of the allegations that are being made against you. while that may or may not be the case. >> reporter: he did not vindicate it. wouldn't it have been just as important for the president to learn? >> sure. then maybe he would have and you wouldn't have any concern with that, would you? >> reporter: my question is to you. >> margret? >> reporter: you said again vindicated. the president said he felt somewhat vindicated. did he feel that having chairman nunes come down here help his own credible? >> i think it's reassuring to know that what he discussed, while again, the chairman made it very clear that he's not
final in any of his processes, that what he has seen so far gave him grave concern or whatever the exact phrase was. to use the phrase chairman nunes said, he gave him concern and pause for what he had seen and wanted the president to be aware of the activity he had seen that occurred during the transition period. i think that's an important -- so i think, yes, the president did -- it was helpful for the president to know that the investigation as he had asked for was starting to bear fruit. again, i think the equally important thing to note about yesterday with the part of what chairman nunes said was that it had nothing to do with these allegations and narrative about russia. that is a very, very important narrative to be clear on. >> reporter: are they going to meet again? after the conversation, they spoke directly, did the president accept chairman nunes finding that there was no wire
tapping at trump tower which he said yesterday? >> well, one, the first one wassen planned. there's nothing planned for the chairman to come down again. second of all, i have and the president has very clearly explained that the tweet wasn't to be taken literal, in the sense of the word wiretap. he was talking about surveillance in general. yes, i think -- yes, what chairman nunes said is that there was evidence of surveillance that occurred during that election. i think that is important to note. again, the obsession is with the process, how he got here, who he briefed first as opposed to the substance of the issue. all i'll tell you, the public comments he made to you and your colleagues here and on capitol hill, is that he was concerned about the surveillance that he has seen and reports of surveillance in individuals who had been masked and unmasked especially during the transition period. that should express concern for
a lot of individuals. >> reporter: president confident chairman nunes can continue to lead this investigation? >> absolutely. >> reporter: and be impartial? there had been questions on that, including republicans. >> thank you very much. i'll see you tomorrow. have a great one. >> dana: sean spicer wrapping up his briefing at the white house where president trump is trying to persuade republicans to vote on his healthcare plan. hello everyone. all eyes are on this office as we await paul ryan to have a press conference and let us know if the house will vote tonight on the american healthcare act. here's a live look at the capitol where the freedom caucus is meeting as we speak behind closed doors. moments ago some of the caucus members spoke out. here's congressman justin amesh and mark meadows. >> chief deputy said final offer, what is your response? >> they're not going to pass the
bill. >> you don't think there's a vote tonight? >> i don't think there can be a vote tonight because they don't have the votes. if there's a vote tonight, it will fail. >> i happen to be the chairman of the freedom caucus but i am not their conscience, nor do i represent their district. we've got 40 plus or minus members that make up their own minds. >> dana: peter ducey joins us live from capitol hill. what came out of that freedom caucus at the white house? who's on first? >> good question. doesn't sound like anything came out of it. nothing final, at least. the freedom caucus went and then they left and there's still no deal. so we understand now that some more moderate members of the republican conference are heading down to the white house to hear president trump out as he tries to make a pitch because, again, they do want to have this vote today on the seven year anniversary of the affordable care act passage. but as for these freedom caucus members who have been holding firm and saying that they would
sink the bill, the leader, mark meadows, congressman from north carolina we heard from a little while ago, he says that his members really aren't asking for that much. >> obviously, we've come from six requests down to two. you might even modify that is one and a half. it has to do all with the obamacare mandates, the obamacare rules. >> reporter: and it's really big that the freedom caucus and the president still have not been able to come to an agreement yet. at this point it does sound like gop leadership is ready to take whatever the freedom caucus and the white house come up with and just put it forward to a vote because they would hope that if there was an agreement, they would have all of the members of the freedom caucus on board and that that would be enough to get them across the finish line. some freedom caucus members yesterday were complaining that the white house was just asking them to approve this bill so that the senate could fix it later. they did not like that.
something they did like were the white house and gop leaderships willingness to let them go in and fix these essential health benefi benefits. conservatives don't think things like maternity care should be mandatory for everybody. they think something like maternity care and birth control became optional that it would save money. there is no agreement. it is getting late in the day, dana, for them to fix something, have a chance to read it and then vote on it today. >> dana: well, i hope you brought your pillowcase because you might be there for awhile. we'll be watching. thank you very much, peter. let's bring in chris starwald to tell us what is going on. can you give us a synopsis from your point of view? do you think it's going to pass? is it policy or politics at this point that's driving the train? >> when you go the the rodeo, they have calf roping, they have bull riding. then there's a goat roping. and the goat roping is not
pretty. >> dana: i was good at it. >> i don't doubt that you were, madam. but it is not good to watch, especially when it's members of congress trying to figure this out. the making of law is always ugly. when you get down to it, it's arm twisting, this, that. this is a particularly odious spectacle. they have had seven or eight years to try to get together behind a replacement, get to the moment where they have the opportunity. they're trying to put the replacement in. turns out nobody likes it. this is legislation that only 17% of respondents in a poll out today said they thought was a good idea. this thing is unpopular. what the president is saying, you got to heed it. we'll make it better later. right now you have to do something that's not going to be well liked. >> dana: the freedom caucus was born out of opposition. they never had a republican parent that would lean on them. will that change any minds? >> it's an interesting moment.
president trump has a lot of sway with these members because their districts went very strongly for president trump. but, if they're able to extract out of him concessions that cut into what we call the patient bill of rights, things that companies must do under obamacare. they must cover sick people. they must include this kind of coverage. if they do that, then you jeopardize votes on the other side from more moderate suburban republicans whose districts donald trump didn't do very well in, where he doesn't have as much clout. so this is the danger for paul ryan and donald trump as they try to put it together. can you get the right wing to come on board without losing the middle? >> dana: i thank you, kind sir. let's bring in guy benson political editor at town hall.com and a fox news contributor and mary anne marse, a president at the dewey school group and senior adviser to john kerry. thank you both for sticking with
us. the briefing at the white house was quite informative and feisty in a spicy kind of way. let me ask you, guy, sean spicer, the press secretary, said this bill is going to pass. i don't think there's any consequence for him to be wrong. you have to say that if you're the president. what are you hearing out of the house freedom caucus this afternoon? >> well, what i'm seeing is the fact that first the freedom caucus went down there. now the tuesday group, moderates, are heading down to the white house. in my estimation, these things wouldn't be happening if house leaders felt confident that they had the votes that they needed. paul ryan's press conference wouldn't be pushed back. we wouldn't have members suggesting maybe the vote might get pushed to tomorrow or next week. they are scrambling to get to 216. it's normally 218 but there are some vacancies. if they had that nailed down, i don't think this drama would be unfolding which, again, indicates to me that this is still a jump ball and it is not necessarily even hour to hour. it is minute to minute which is
sort of an extraordinary thing to watch. >> dana: i have to say, i am impressed with your basketball reference. i do think those sports metaphors should be used in the appropriate season. so i congratulate you on that. >> unlike chris starwald, i can't make rodeo references because that's not my game. >> dana: you look like a basketball player. let me ask maryanne, what do the democrats want? i'm assuming they want it to pass so they can then blame everything that's to come on republicans. >> that's right. and i thought chris just made the exact point everyone needs to be watching. if trump cuts a deal with the freedom caucus and they deliver the 40 votes, i just checked two seconds ago. right now there are 30 nos. that's enough to kill it. but if the freedom caucus gets on board and pass this bill, that hurts moderates, the very districts the democrats need to win back the house. there are 23, 24 republicans in the house in districts that hillary clinton won. if this passes this will be hanged around their neck no
matter whether they voted against it or not. that's exactly what democrats are looking for. in addition to the fact that trump is wildly unpopular right now, with ratings down at 39%, 37%, that only work in the districts where he won. and, two, this bill in particular is even more unpopular. so you've got a set of circumstances which, after seven years to get to this day, the republicans still aren't there, aren't able to deliver yet. but one thing they might deliver is the house to democrats if it's the moderates that get hurt by this bill that passes, whatever it looks like. >> dana: president trump has, i think, shown a lot of willingness to get behind this. he has worked very hard one on one with members. one of the things we saw the other day is that he was leaning on some of the house freedom caucus members saying, i will come after you. i guess that means in the primary. but many of these people like mark meadows actually won their district by 30 points even ahead of where president trump was. maybe they're not worried about
the politics, even though i think people in their districts are going to want him to try to support the president if he can. >> yeah. maybe not. but again, trump is a very powerful mega phone. if you show up in the district, you're president trump. you show up and a republican member who usually gets voted through every two years. you say in the very first big vote of this congress, congressman x voted with nancy pelosi against trump? that is not a good look for that congressman. they know that. so there's some pressures there. and i understand the point that maryanne's making about these moderate and swing districts, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that obamacare is failing and hurting millions of people who live in those districts. republicans ran on getting rid of this terrible law for four straight elections and won three of them. so pretending like this is all just on the republicans, the american people remember very well who is responsible for the failing status quo. >> dana: certainly the politics are fascinating.
policy is very interesting. i'm sorry i have to cut it short. your insight was invaluable. thank you very much. we are awaiting a news conference with house speaker paul ryan, as the freedom caucus cast new doubt over the fate of the republican healthcare plan. will they vote or won't they? we'll see.
>> dana: police identified the suspect in the london terror attack. he's a 52-year-old with a long criminal record. right now a vigil is being held to remember the victims. four people were killed and dozens more injured. benjamin hall joins us now live at westminster bridge in london. benjamin what is the scene like right now? >> reporter: welsh dana, we've just been up on the bridge. what is amazing less than 24 hours after this brutal attack took place, it is open. the british prime minister said britain will not be brought to
its knees by terrorism. we are learning about an american who was visiting with his wife. he was from utah. he is now dead and his wife remains in critical condition. as you said, more about the attacker himself. he was british born. he came from birmingham. today arrests are being carried out around the country. six in birmingham as the police try to find out if there were any accomplices. they believe he was acting alone, but of course they're not leaving any stone unturned. it is still a sense of tragedy as the vigil gets under way but very much a sense that britain is on its feet moving forward. the news that an american is among the dead, is a reminder that it is not an attack just on britain, but everyone around the world. >> dana: thank you, benjamin. we are awaiting paul ryan's press conference and what he will say about negotiations between the president and house members on the republican healthcare bill. you don't let anything keep you sidelined.
>> dana: we're awaiting a news conference with house speaker paul ryan as a vote on the republican healthcare plan could be on hold. the speaker appears to be rallying republicans. greg walden and katherine rogers are seen entering his office moments ago. many republicans strongly oppose the bill like jamie buler ho says, we can do better than the current replacement plan and i cannot support it in its current form. southwest washington redents also deserve a greater commitment to lowering health costs so that out of pockets premiums and taxes are taking up less of their monthly pay check. let's bring in the political editor of the national journal. you wrote this week about reading the tea leaves on this. we talked about the house freedom caucus and how they wanted changes. then as chris was saying, if you
give them too much, do you freeze out people like congressman beutler who says, i can't do this at this point? do you lose some of the moderates? >> dana, the big news is that the moderates who were at one point willing to support paul ryan, willing to vote for compromised legislation, amid all this chaos have decided to come on record and say they cannot support whatever emerges this evening from the house. there are as many house republicans as there are members of the freedom caucus. ryan is in a no win situation. to appease the hard right members of his caucus, he's going to lose a lot of voters in the middle, ones who face tough reelection in 2018. you are seeing a trickle op congress woman like beutler, you saw amen saying he can't support the legislation. it will be tough for paul ryan to get the 216 votes he needs. >> dana: we've established the bill is not popular right now. people don't like it. from all different sides.
seniors, veterans, all groups don't like it, and yet president trump's popularity, at least with republican, is really high. so i have been wondering about the house freedom caucus guys who are pretty safe seats and their willingness to maybe say no to the president. is that significant to you? >> it is very significant. on political map alone, if you look at trump support in a lot of freedom caucus districts, trump won 60, 70 plus percent of the vote. on paper, his popularity should trump, no pun intended, the controversy perhaps with the legislation itself. but you're seeing mark meadow, you're seeing hard line members giving donald trump a hard time. in fact, after the meeting this morning, not only did they say there's not a deal, but they said they're willing to vote against the president of the united states, who is still very popular in their congressional districts. so trump -- and trump hasn't sold the legislation on policy grounds. he said you have to take a vote for the team, take one for me and my popularity. that hasn't been an effective
way to sell this very important legislation. >> dana: i wanted to get two last things. what are the benefits, if it does pass, politically for president trump and the house republicans? >> well, a, it shows he can get thins done. lot of voters like him because he is seen as a can-do leader. that he's able to be a businessman and be effective in his role as effective. that brand would be undermined somewhat if he can't get the votes he needs. paul ryan has a lot at stake with his speakership. >> dana: i want to ask you on one other topics. democrats said neil gorsuch, president trump's nominee for supreme court, they don't want to support him. they're offering a deal to republicans to say don't trigger the nuclear option yet. do a deal with us. does that politically sound like something republicans should do? even i know not to take that deal. >> shows the democrats have a very weak hand when it comes to neil gorsuch.
they are threatening to filibuster. there are a lot of red state democrats who are up for re-election who are supporting gorsuch. joe manchin, claire mchaskell. lot of red state democrats in conservative minded states are not gonna like what chuck shumer had to say about the filibuster today. >> dana: what do you think senator mitch mcconnell is thinking? does he hold or call for the vote? >> if chuck shumer means what he says and is gonna filibuster and make it as tough as possible, it is more likely than not the filibuster is off and it will only take 50 votes to confirm neil gorsuch. >> dana: politically for trump, how important is it to get gorsuch, get that win? >> biggest high note of his presidency, for him to be confirmed would be a bit of good news this week. >> dana: josh, thank you very much. your insight is always very good and i love your column every week. >> thanks, dana. >> dana: we have the best story of the day. believe it or not, it has to do
with dogs and washington, d.c. stay tuned. (singsong) budget meeting. sweet. if you compare last quarter... it's no wonder everything seems a little better with the creamy taste of philly, made with no artificial preservatives, flavours or dyes. ( ♪ ) upstate new york is a good place to pursue your dreams. at vicarious visions, i get to be creative, work with awesome people, and we get to make great games. ( ♪ ) what i like about the area, feels like everybody knows each other. and i can go to my local coffee shop and they know who i am. it's really cool. new york state is filled with bright minds like lisa's. to find the companies and talent of tomorrow, search for our page,
jobsinnewyorkstate on linkedin. (announcer vo) there's a moment of truth.etes, search for our page, and now with victoza® a better moment of proof. victoza® lowers my a1c and blood sugar better than the leading branded pill, which didn't get me to my goal. lowers my a1c better than the leading branded injectable. the one i used to take. and better than that diabetes pill i used to take. (jeff) victoza® works with your body to lower blood sugar in three ways-- in the stomach, the liver, and the pancreas. and while it isn't for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. non-insulin victoza® comes in a pen and is taken once a day.
(announcer vo) victoza® is not recommended as the first medication to treat diabetes, and is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck or if you develop any allergic symptoms including itching, rash, or difficulty breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. so, stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. the most common side effects are headache, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. now's the time for a better moment of proof. ask your doctor about victoza®.
>> dana: an emotional day for professional golfer jason day. after forfeiting a match at the wgc match play championship in austin. on hi ways out, he told the heart breaking reason he couldn't play longer and walked off the golf course. >> my mom has been here for a while. she has lung cancer. at the start of the year, she was diagnosed with 12 months to live. it's so hard. >> all of our thoughts and prayers are with them. they love each other very much. in honor of national puppy day, ryan zenke is declaring this puppy day.
he rode a horse to work his first day. his love for animals is clear. here he is with his own pup. now he's taken it to a new level allowing k-9s in the workplace. we'll see you later. >> shepard: it's noon on the west coast, 3:00 on capitol hill. we're about to hear from paul ryan if we wait to see if tonight's healthcare vote will even happen. president trump keeping up the pressure on twitter. >> go with our plan. it's going to be terrific. you'll be very, very happy. call your local representative, call your senator. >> shepard: right now there's no deal, a group of republican senators is blocking the bill. we're live on capitol hill and at the white house. the president claims he was right about president obama wiretapping trump tower because of what the house intelligence committee chairman said yesterday. one democrat on the